Son's teacher needs to go back to school

Sambucus_Nigra

*max* wrote: »

Yes we are, I can assure you. I said "to me", it's just the way I read it.
Since we read from left to right, the sign ">" always means "greater than". I am not arguing, there is no point: we are saying the same thing! Anything else is just rhethorical.

So using your analogy

30>60

???

*max*

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So using your analogy

30>60

???

I stand by what I said. ">" means "greater than". In this case, the phrase is simply false.

bestpud

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So using your analogy

30>60

???

The sign still means 'greater than'.

It makes a difference to the calculation if it is before or after a figure, but it still means 'greater than'.

Sambucus_Nigra

bestpud wrote: »

The sign still means 'greater than'.

It makes a difference to the calculation if it is before or after a figure, but it still means 'greater than'.

It also means less than. Depending on what is either side.

By saying it only means 'greater than' you are saying that it doesn't matter what is either side - but it all hangs on what is on either side.

So by saying that it just means greater than, it is saying that 30>60 is right. Which is isn't.

onlyroz

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So using your analogy

30>60

???

In computing you might have something like:

if (30 > 60) then...

Such a statement would always return false because 30 isn't greater than 60 and never will be. It would still be a perfectly valid statement and the program would compile with no problems (doesn't mean that the person who wrote it wasn't bloody stupid though).

">" ALWAYS means "greater than", even if the expression using it is false.

Sambucus_Nigra

onlyroz wrote: »

In computing you might have something like:

if (30 > 60) then...

Such a statement would always return false because 30 isn't greater than 60 and never will be. It would still be a perfectly valid statement and the program would compile with no problems (doesn't mean that the person who wrote it wasn't bloody stupid though).

">" ALWAYS means "greater than", even if the expression using it is false.

No - it means that the thing on the left is greater than the thing on the right. It also means that the thing on the right is less than the thing on the left. It can't 'always mean' something because it only means something when there is something on one side or both sides of it.

*max*

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

It also means less than. Depending on what is either side.

By saying it only means 'greater than' you are saying that it doesn't matter what is either side - but it all hangs on what is on either side.

So by saying that it just means greater than, it is saying that 30>60 is right. Which is isn't.

No, it's not saying 30>60 is right. The sign is a constant, the values of x and y can make the phrase true or false. In this case, they make it false.

Sambucus_Nigra

*max* wrote: »

No, it's not saying 30>60 is right. The sign is a constant, the values of x and y can make the phrase true or false. In this case, they make it false.

Hence proving that > doesn't categorically mean 'greater than'.

onlyroz

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

No - it means that the thing on the left is greater than the thing on the right. It also means that the thing on the right is less than the thing on the left. It can't 'always mean' something because it only means something when there is something on one side or both sides of it.

No it doesn't. It's what we call a comparison operator. If we've got a statement:
x > y
then from a maths or computing perspective it doesn't matter what x and y actually are. What we are interested in is whether the statement "x is greater than y" is true or false.

peaceandfreedom

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Clearly you are aiming not to understand me, or you have less understanding than you realise.

I have perfect understanding of the greater-than and less-than symbols. As I would hope any child leaving primary school would have. As I would certainly expect any teacher teaching maths (or indeed teaching anything) to have.

BTW I'm a computer programmer, there is zero chance of my confusing > and <.

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Literally, as you read it, the sign is traditonally less than, and therefore the statement can be read as "less than" 30

No, the sign is NOT traditionally less than, under any circumstances. Reading from left to right, it's greater than.

welshgirl78 wrote: »

If you have geninue concerns about my ability we can discuss it further. I have no concerns. I was merely pointing out that as a teacher it is interesting to understand Why someone has that misconception rather than just saying they are wrong.

If you are a secondary maths teacher and confuse the > and < symbols, then frankly I would have genuine concerns about your ability. It shows a broad lack of understanding, which I would find very worrying in a maths teacher.

But don't worry, your own students will put you right when you try this one on them. Ask them on Monday how '>30' reads. (That's assuming you haven't already taught them the wrong way.)

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Surely it is a little concerning that you interpret a comment (however incorrect you may believe it to be) as an opportunity to demean all maths teachers. I hope we are not solely responsible.

I don't BELIEVE the comment to be incorrect, it IS incorrect. You announced yourself as a secondary maths teacher so you might expect to be held to account for your error. However, I concede that it's unfair to tar all maths teachers with the same brush, there are many excellent and inspiring maths teachers out there. I would guess they all know their > from their <.